[techhelpbb]

I've made quite a few handicap retrofit components over the years. Including gizmos to drive cars with joysticks and the like without actually removing the driver from the equation. Mostly for people that have physical issues that would prevent the operation of the vehicle otherwise.

The odds that Google will succeed in convincing people that their automated driving cars are perfectly safe, so safe that no further mechanisms are required are slim.

There are so many very real factors to consider. For example, if your car stalls you loose your power brakes and power steering. How many people here have tried to drive an old car without these features? If you do you'll discover why often handicap retrofits require auxiliary electric hydraulics in the event of a stall. No simple retrofit like you see on MythBusters turning the wheel will accommodate this situation.

To make matters worse, you have to consider the transmissions. Automatic transmissions usually get worse gas mileage than manuals, and with the exceptions of the hybrid styles of the 2, you're likely to end up with something less fuel efficient and possibly worse on the wear and tear of the brakes or clutch.

Course if you make the car electric you might not even need the clutch (electric motors have extremely high torque output so they don't need the clutch if the electrics can handle the load at gear change, they don't stall when they loose RPM usually).

This is all a very clever idea, and I support all the safety warnings that drivers might gain from this experiment (there are so many safety features car makers just don't use that already exist or could easily be put into production). However, I can't see anything Google puts on the road today getting anywhere near the requirements to put into mass production.